Marine protection for the Hauraki GulfDoC's proposal for a working group for marine reserves
in the Hauraki Gulf, March 2004
Dissected by Dr J Floor Anthoni (2004)
www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/war/hauraki.htm
The text in back is the original text and the
text in blue is ours.

This is DOC's response to the Public's request
for an integrated approach to conserving our seas. Although this document
is still in a state of construction, its purpose and methods are clearly
defined. The main change in direction comes from consultation before
proposing marine reserves and more opennes, but the way this is done still
rests on DOC and scientists dominating the process. Proposed for placing
marine reserves in the populous Hauraki Gulf area, DOC will undoubtedly
continue its confrontational approach with other (larger) marine reserves
elsewhere. Reader please note that this plan has not been realised so far
but it shows how DoC is scheming for fast-tracking solutions.

Strategy for Protection
of Marine Biodiversity For the Hauraki Gulf
The Department of ConservationMarch, 2004
Reader, please note that this was the original
proposal which may have changed over time.

Project Goal:To develop and implement a strategy for establishing a network of areas
that protects marine biodiversity in the Hauraki Gulf.

It is not clear whether marine biodiversity
is going to be protected under the Marine Reserves Act 1971, the new MR
Amendment Act, or Fisheries Act or other Acts such as Local Body acts and
those covering cable ways and ammunition dumps. The use of the word network
implies that we are talking only about permanently closed marine reserves.
The Public has difficulty understanding the Biodiversity Strategy (Marine)
which states that the only acceptable form of protection of biodiversity
is a permanently closed area. The public is questioning this concept since
biodiversity is about viable populations, not necessarily unfished ones.
Unexploited populations do not exist in nature. Before going any further,
this needs to be clarified.

General Objectives:

Obtain funding commitments to carry out the first stage of work, including
support for both the general work to be done and for general communications
related to that work. The Biodiversity Strategy has
a large fund, and so has DOC for establishing new marine reserves. DOC
has over 100M$ to spend each year. What is it spent on?

Resolve issues that are currently open that will guide next steps in the
process. These include:

a) Establishing a clear definition of "Hauraki Gulf". Why
is this necessary, since the new model will eventually be used to usher
in all marine reserves along our coasts. The extent of the Hauraki Gulf
was defined by the Hauraki Gulf forum, but it does not extend out to the
territorial limit. Surely the Great Barrier Island proposal is not going
to be pushed through this way? b) Identifying the main interest groups that will need to be
involved and the amount of overlap between various groups. The
main interest groups should be those most affected by closed areas, the
fishermen. c) Determining a role for the Hauraki Gulf Forum. Why
not let them determine their own role? d) Determine whether present coastal marine
reserves are actually working. e) Determine whether there exists scientific
proof for the network concept. f) Determine the level of protection
offered by cable ways and ammunition dumps. g) Determine what the most pressing threat
to the seas is, and use the best conservation tools available.

Form a working group that will be responsible for:

a) creating the strategy using the best available scientific,
cultural and other relevant information,
b) negotiating on the behalf of stakeholder groups, manage information
on specific themes of interest, and
c) serving as links for ongoing public consultation throughout
the process.
The working group does not only do all the work,
but makes the decisions too. Stakeholders are there only to rubber-stamp
their recommendations.

Create a science panel and Tangata Whenua participation panel that will
consolidate information on science and iwi/ hapu issues to feed into the
working group discussions.

Create a media/communications and education committee that will work on
releasing information to the public and ensuring that there is adequate
public understanding of the process and its objectives for people to participate
in consultations through relevant channels. DOC has
spent large on media communications and is likely to dominate this part,
particularly in their role of propaganda provider.

Establish clear roles and terms of engagement for each of these groups.

The main problem here is that the voices of
those most affected, the recreational fishermen, are swamped by the opinions
and beliefs of people who have neither direct involvement nor practical
knowledge nor an emotional link with the sea. Most of the people in this
decision process have not even bothered to inform themselves.

Funding:Possible sources of funds

DOC has limited funding ($35,000) available until the end of the year for
basic operations. Where did all the money go?
Has DOC squandered it on failed projects and needless confrontation?

Local council has expressed an interest in possible support for some communications
work. This timing and nature of this support should be clarified.

Notes on the usage of funds

Once the process to be undertaken has been approved, then a budget should
be drawn up. If the funding available from DOC is inadequate, additional
funds will need to be sought.

This brief recommends that all participants in the working group and related
committees be loaned to the process, free of charge, from their agencies.
In addition to participants, there will be a need for third party facilitation
of both working group meetings as well as science (and perhaps iwi) meetings.
Costs of these facilitation services will need to be covered. Clearly
the recreational sector is designed to be marginalised since they are not
funded by the Public Purse.

There may be costs associated with education and communications on the
process. To keep such costs to a minimum, a survey should be made of all
of the different communications tools in use by involved members of the
working group and its panels, and gaps in communication should be targeted
for coverage. Seafriends has a FREE independent web
site, visited by thousands and dedicated to truthful dissemination of information,
independent of Government, and free from propaganda.

Costs related to iwi/ hapu involvement and consultation should be determined
together with experts from that area. Why should
Iwi/Hapu be paid but not recreational users? If true consultation is intended,
the representation from recreational fishers must be subsidised fully.

Rationale for establishing a working group as a key component
of the strategyMulti-stakeholder working groups have been successfully used as centralized
bodies for decision making and public consultation in NZ and internationally.

Experience from the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary: Perhaps
the most widely publicized use of a multi-stakeholder working group to
create priorities and resolve conflicts on issues of marine biodiversity
was in the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. The Marine
Reserves Working Group (MRWG) for the Channel Islands was set up (1998)
to establish a community and stakeholder process for considering marine
reserves in the area. It was made up of representatives of major interest
groups and had both a science and socio-economic panel providing advice
on specific issues.

Working group meetings were open to the public and minutes were posted
on the web. However, members of the public were required to raise specific
issues and questions with the relevant working group members representing
their interests, either before or after the meetings. In addition, several
public workshops were held in order to inform and answer questions from
the public on the process and to gather broader public input.
If such a process, where public input and consultation is taken into
account during decision making, is acceptable as a substitute for the more
traditional approach of making decisions and then carrying out public consultation
afterwards, then an approach similar to that used in the Channel Islands
may be an efficient and cost effective way to create a strategy for marine
biodiversity protection in the Hauraki Gulf. Is DOC
going to abandon its confrontational approach, or does it only seem so?
Let's not forget that the Channel Islands consultation group, funded by
over US$2 million collapsed once they ran out of money! It is at this moment
in limbo, also for other reasons. "While the group achieved consensus on
a problem statement and the goals and objectives for marine reserves, they
were unable to fully agree on a recommendation on the specific size and
locations of MPAs.".(www.dfg.ca.gov/news/news01/01071.html)
www.cinms.nos.noaa.gov/
and http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/channel_islands/mpa_history.pdf

The
state of California (US) has halted a program to create a system of marine
reserves throughout its waters, citing shortages of funds and staff to
carry out the effort. The program, required by a 1999 state law (MPA News
1:3) and involving seven regional working groups to develop reserve options,
is now on “indefinite hold” until the state has the necessary resources
to restart and complete it, according to government officials. The state
is in discussions with private organizations, including foundations, to
see if non-governmental funds could help pay the bill, estimated at up
to US$2.3 million to run the two-year working group process. “The state
needs to be creative about alternative ways to design the process that
are not so resource-intensive,” says Karen Garrison of the Natural Resources
Defense Council, an environmental NGO. The
program has been handicapped by past delays. In 2002, state officials set
aside two years of reserve-planning work by scientists in response
to protests by fishermen that they had not had enough input in the planning
process (MPA News 3:9). The state redesigned the planning process to feature
working groups of stakeholders, but ran into funding shortages in early
2003, which have kept the working groups from meeting since then. (MPA
News 4:9)

NZ experience from Fiordlands: A multi-stakeholder working group
was also successfully established and used to create an integrated management
strategy for fisheries and marine environments in Fiordlands, NZ. The Guardians
of Fiordlands was set up with support from the Ministry of Environment
and worked together with NIWA, Te Papa, MinFish, DOC, MfE and Environment
Southland. The working group was composed of representatives of commercial
and recreational fishers, charter operators, Ngai Tahu, environment and
community interests. The Fiordlands experience seems to support the
idea that a multi-stakeholder working group approach can be implemented
successfully in New Zealand. Although this group
has achieved good practical results, it concentrated on a small area. What
we need is an overall integrated strategy for all of NZ. It must also be
noted that the group established itself without outside intervention.

Establishing a science panelThere are many outstanding science issues that will need to be resolved
in order for the working group to effectively use the science information
that is available. One of the most important early questions is related
to the validity of the marine classification system for evaluating biological
habitats. Other important questions concern methodologies for breaking
down available data into meaningful groups, decisions on how much anecdotal
data to include and how to weight such data, and prioritization of national
biodiversity protection vs. local biodiversity protection in evaluating
the different areas and habitats to be protected..

There are many more outstanding scientific
issues, like whether our existing marine reserves are actually delivering
on their promise of protecting biodiversity. The latest monitoring results
from our best marine reserve shows that it too is degrading badly with
considerable reductions in traditional fish species. Our other reserves
fare much worse. [See myths11,
(19 pages) examining DoC's report on monitoring results from various marine
reserves.]

All of these questions will need to be decided upon by a group of scientists
and field experts. Due to the technical nature of the discussions they
will undertake, it is suggested that they meet separately from the working
group. They will then be required to send a single, consistent spokesperson
to provide two-way information and communications and to participate in
the working groups discussions and decisions.

It would be appreciated if a representative
from the fishing interests could be part of this panel, fully subsidised.

It is suggested that the composition of this science panel should include
representatives from at least the following agencies: NIWA, ARC,
DOC, the University of Auckland, other interested universities, and a representative
from the Northland science panel. Costs of participation in this group
should be covered by the organizations for which the scientists work. It
is not recommended that scientists be paid to participate in this group
since we would have little control over how long the deliberations might
take, or the number of meetings that are required. The process will probably
move forward most efficiently if it is in the interest of every participant
to complete the work as quickly and efficiently as possible. Is
this realistic? Most science agencies have to recover costs. Who is the
Northland Science Panel?

Establishing a panel for tangata whenua participationGiven past experience with marine reserves and especially, the most
recent experience of the government on foreshore issues, it is expected
that building relationships and gathering relevant information from tangata
whenua will be a complex, time consuming process that will need to be handled
sensitively.

In order to allow specific experts in this area to work on these issues
and to create a forum for participation of iwi/hapu leaders (if desired),
it is suggested that a special panel be created for tangata whenua participation.

This composition of this panel will be determined in consultation with
experts in this area, and with key Maori community leaders. The panel
will elect a spokesperson who will serve on the working group and who will
be responsible for communications to other members of the TW panel. It
is expected that members of the TW panel will in turn take responsibility
for two-way communications on the process to iwi/ hapu members and to the
representative elected to the larger working group.

Setting up a committee for communications and educationPublic awareness and education are a key component of the DOC strategy
put forth in the June 2002 document "Building Community Support for Marine
Protection". That document clearly outlines the need to build community
support for marine biodiversity protection strategies through improved
information flows and participation.

Is DOC aware that the Seafriends Marine
Conservation and Education Centre was established in Leigh to provide totally
independent marine education to the public? Starting as early as 1990,
Seafriends now has the largest and most informative free web site, which
traces the causes of all our problems in the sea. All this was achieved
without any outside funding. Why is DOC not endorsing this? Worse still,
why is DoC still spreading false propaganda? Can the public trust the information
flow from any government department? This is a very serious issue that
needs to be addressed with high priority.

While it is expected that each member of the working group and associated
panels will serve as a two way communications conduit with their key constituents,
there will still be a significant portion of the public who are not associated
with any of the interest groups, but who should be informed and educated
about the process and its eventual outcomes. This
should be done regardless of this group.

In addition, it will be necessary for the working group to release official
statements about progress to the media, to carry out several public consultation
meetings (on the process, rather than on specific issues.Why?),
and to inform the public about the status of decisions. Since the working
group is a collective, participative body, it might be better if no single
agency or individual is seen as responsible for such statements to the
media or public. The public is not interested in
process but in specific issues, which need to be addressed and resolved.

It is suggested that a small committee for communications and education
be established to carry out these and other related communications functions.
This panel could include key communications people from involved agencies,
a media expert (if available at little or no cost) and/ or a PR expert.
DOC
has such people, free of charge of course.

In addition, it is suggested that an information management expert be
placed on this committee to take charge of setting up and managing a public
information system that both collects input from the general public and
which responds to or directs specific questions to the relevant working
group members.

Forming the committees and nominating spokespeople
for the working groupThe key to a successful working group process is election of individuals
to the working group that are both interested and willing to reach a decision
that can best meet the objectives of the whole group, and who are seen
as truly representative of the public's interests. Nominating individuals
to the working group and to the different panels to be formed will most
likely be a time consuming and contentious process. It is therefore necessary
to carry this process out in the most transparent and participative way
possible. No more secrecy and deceit?

One possibility for nominating spokespeople to the working group might
be to start with communicating information on the process to be undertaken
to the public, together with an invitation to interest groups to express
their desire for participation in the process to DOC. DOC will then consolidate
all such expressions of interest and group people who share similar interests
and goals. These groups of people will then be placed in contact with one
another and asked to elect a single spokesperson to the working group.
The fact that costs of the spokesperson's participation in the working
group will need to be covered by his/her employing agency, should help
to reduce competition for places. Since spokespeople will be represented
by their interest group "constituency", they will have a direct responsibility
to those constituents for two-way communications as the process evolves.

This method of selection smacks of that
for the Conservation Boards, resulting in lapdogs for DOC, rather than
watchdogs. If DOC is in any way involved in this selection process, the
Public will have no whatsoever faith in its outcomes. Instead, stakeholders
should appoint their representatives and these should be reimbursed all
their expenses.

Nominating people to the different expert committees is likely to be a
more controlled internal process involving the key agencies and experts
in the appropriate areas. Since expertise in different scientific and cultural
areas seems to be limited in NZ, it should be possible for a small team
of agency representatives to quickly determine the individuals who can
best serve on each panel. Watch out!

The following sections were not completed:

Estimated CostEstimated Time FrameAppendices

Draft rules for
engagement of working group members

Marine Biodiversity Protection Working Group for the Hauraki Gulf

Established in response to mandates from the:

Marine Strategy. Biodiversity Strategy (Marine)?

Hauraki Gulf Forum

The need to establish a stakeholder process to create a strategy
for marine biodiversity protection in the Hauraki Gulf. The
real need is for a truly integrated approach which looks at all aspects
of saving the sea, including population control, landbased pollution and
fishing regulations.

Will work in conjunction with a Science Panel and an Tangata Whenua Participation
Panel.

Sample Mission Statement of MBPWG for Hauraki Gulf: "Using the best
available information from all sources, the working group will collaborate
to seek agreement on a recommendation to MfE (?)
regarding the establishment of guidelines that will protect marine biodiversity
in the Hauraki Gulf in the interests of both the surrounding and the greater
NZ communities."

Timeline; It is expected that the MBPWG will develop and forward its recommendation
to MfE by 2005.

Participation

To be established to include a wide range of community and stakeholder
perspectives as well as different areas of expertise

Should have relatively equal participation of consumptive and non-consumption
interests.

Stakeholder involvement

All designated spokespeople are encouraged, but not required, to set up
stakeholder working groups with whom they work on making decisions.

All working group members serve as two way conduits for information exchange
with their constituencies.

Minutes of meetings will be web-posted.

Meetings are not designed for public input, however public input is encouraged
before and after each meeting with the relevant working group members.

Decision Making Processes

The working group will strive to reach consensus in all of its decisions.
This means that all members must articulate interests clearly, propose
feasible alternatives, listen to proposals and build agreements by negotiating
a recommendation for adoption by the MfE.

Working group Operations

Meetings will be chaired by representatives of the major organizations
sponsoring the MBPWG.

The meeting chairs and their assistants will

i. Develop meeting agendas with input from members and facilitators
ii. Serve as official spokespeople for the process
iii. Encourage active participation of all members
iv. Communicate relevant legal framework issues to the group
v. Keep the working group accountable for tasks and timelines.
vi. Support the facilitators.

Hauraki Gulf Forum (ideally should be invited to make submissions as a
body to the working group, but non-voting)

HAURAKI GULF MARINE PROTECTION
PLANSeeking support from the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister for the
Environment, and the Minister of Auckland Issues
Departmental Submission
Date: 19 March 2005 File reference:
Auckland PAP-02-07-07Minister of Conservation

Subject: HAURAKI GULF MARINE PROTECTION PLAN
Action Sought: Note proposal to proceed with
the development of a plan and seek support for the proposal from your colleagues,
the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister for the Environment, and the Minister
of Auckland Issues.
Deadline: No deadline
Paper Type: (Cabinet, Statutory or Other)
Other
Dept’s Priority: (Very High, High, Normal or Low)
Medium
Risk Assessment: (e.g. possible negative reactions/consequences)
Proceeding with Great Barrier marine reserve proposal prior to this proposal
may require a response to criticism from fishing interests.
Level of Risk: (High, Medium or Low)
Medium

Name

Position

Telephone

1

Barbara Browne

RGM (Northern)

(07) 858 0003(wk) (027) 2430699 (ah)

2

Felicity Wong

Manager, Marine Conservation Unit

(04) 4713179 (wk) (027) 4824652 (ah)

3

Warwick Murray

Community Relations Manager

(09) 3074855 (wk) (025) 751306 (ah)

Executive Summary

In response to the several independent marine reserve proposals currently
being promoted in the Auckland region, many stakeholders have expressed
dissatisfaction at the lack of an overall plan for the selection of marine
reserve sites and have stated that they cannot support any current or future
proposals until such time as a strategic plan is tabled for the entire
Auckland region. This concern reflects the competition that exists
for space within the Hauraki Gulf between recreational fishing, commercial
fishing, customary fishing, aquaculture and marine biodiversity protection
interests.

We believe that there would be much to gain by addressing these concerns
and taking into account the needs of these users of the Hauraki Gulf up
front and to do so, are proposing that a steering group be formed to implement
a plan to identify a network of marine protected areas in the Hauraki Gulf.
The steering group would comprise representatives from the department,
Ministry of Fisheries, Ministry for the Environment, Auckland Regional
Council, Environment Waikato and interested territorial authorities.
The process we are proposing for the plan will allow for the active involvement
of tangata whenua, other stakeholders and interested parties, and for liaison
with the Hauraki Gulf Forum. The proposed process follows closely
the concepts outlined within the draft Marine Protected Areas Strategy
that we and the Ministry of Fisheries are jointly preparing. We believe
that the proposed process give us the best chance of achieving the 10%
marine protection goal as outlined in the Biodiversity Strategy by the
proposed deadline of 2010. The integrated approach that we are proposing
will aim to meet the needs of other agencies and groups, which we expect
will include recreational fishers and tangata whenua, while at the same
time meeting the department’s core objective of marine biodiversity and
habitat protection.

It is proposed that the area covered by the plan be that contained within
the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park and that it would exclude the west coast and
western harbours of Waikato, Auckland and Northland.

It is our intention to progress the marine reserve proposal for Great
Barrier prior to the completion of the proposed plan. We do not intend
to promote any other marine reserve proposals until the steering group
has completed its work. If you agree, after discussion with your
colleagues, you may wish to make a suitable announcement.

Fisheries management issues will almost certainly arise during discussions
and deliberations on the proposed plan. Therefore, it is essential
that the Ministry of Fisheries is fully involved in the plan.

Recommended Action

It is recommended that you–

Minister’s decision

(a) Note that we are planning to develop a plan identifying
a network of areas that protect marine biodiversity in the Hauraki Gulf.

( yes / no )

(b) Agree to support the development of the proposed
plan.

( yes / no )

(c) Agree to seek support for the proposed plan from
Hon David Benson-Pope, Minister of Fisheries, Hon Marion Hobbs, Minister
for the Environment, and Hon Judith Tizard, Minister of Auckland Issues,
Auckland Regional Council, Environment Waikato and six territorial authorities
(draft letters attached).

The purpose of this paper is to seek your support for a proposal to
develop a plan for establishing a network of areas that protect marine
biodiversity in the Hauraki Gulf and to request that you seek the support
of your colleagues, Hon David Benson-Pope, Minister of Fisheries, Hon Marion
Hobbs, Minister for the Environment, and Hon Judith Tizard, Minister of
Auckland Issues.

Background

Marine Protected Areas StrategyThe New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy 2000 directs us and a number
of other agencies to achieve a target of protecting ten percent of New
Zealand’s marine environment by 2010 with a view to establishing a network
of representative protected marine areas. Currently, less than three
percent of our country’s marine environment is protected.

In order to achieve the marine protection goals set by the New Zealand
Biodiversity Strategy we, together with the Ministry of Fisheries, are
jointly developing for public consultation a Marine Protected Areas Strategy
(MPA Strategy). The MPA Strategy aims to establish a network of marine
protected areas, to ensure that the relevant government agencies make marine
protection work a priority, and to ensure marine protected areas are established
using a common multi-agency approach.

Current approach to marine protectionIn this country, the current approach to marine protection is somewhat
piecemeal. Rather than focusing on a network of marine protected
areas, we tend to target individual sites for marine reserves. In
addition to marine reserve proposals advocated by us, other agencies and
non-government organisations are eligible to propose marine reserves and
other marine protected areas, which does not necessarily lead to an integrated
approach to marine protection. The current approach does not contribute
to network approach or to the use of a common multi-agency approach as
advocated by the draft MPA Strategy. Nor does it necessarily assist
with the Biodiversity Strategy’s objective of ensuring a representative
range of marine habitats in this country is under protection.

Stakeholder concernIn the past eighteen months, in the Auckland region alone, marine reserve
proposals have been mooted for Great Barrier Island, Tiritiri Matangi Island
and Tawharanui and a marine park has been proposed for Auckland’s West
Coast. These proposals have resulted in some members of the Auckland
community expressing increasing concern about the way in which marine protected
areas are established. The concern reflects the competition for space
that exists within the Hauraki Gulf between commercial fishing, recreational
fishing, customary fishing, aquaculture and marine biodiversity protection
interests. Key marine stakeholders have been strongly critical of
the current approach to the selection of marine protected areas, claiming
it is ad hoc and unscientific. In particular, some stakeholders have
expressed dissatisfaction at the lack of an overall plan for the selection
of marine protected area sites.

Stakeholder concern about the establishment of marine protected areas
is being translated into active opposition to individual proposals, with
New Zealand Underwater (NZU) receiving around 6,000 objections to its marine
reserve proposal for Tiritiri Matangi Island and the pro-recreational fishing
group Option4 launching a high profile advertising campaign against our
Great Barrier Island marine reserve proposal last year. Several key
stakeholder groups have stated they can not support any current or future
marine protected area proposals until such time as a strategic plan is
tabled for the entire Auckland region.

Comment

Need for an integrated approachTo reduce some of the conflicts the department and others have experienced
with past marine reserve proposals, we believe there is a need to adopt
an integrated multi-agency strategy toward marine biodiversity protection.
Such a strategy would address stakeholder concerns and involve the community
in the identification of marine protected areas. The approach would
closely follow the concepts outlined in the draft MPA Strategy and should
assist us and other organisations to establish more marine reserves and
other marine protected areas and also provide a robust framework to address
issues relating to the competition that exists for space within the Hauraki
Gulf. We are therefore proposing a plan (called the Hauraki Gulf
Marine Protection Plan) to protect a representative range of marine habitats
in the Hauraki Gulf. A scoping report has been prepared and we have
identified a draft process for the plan.

The expected outcome of our proposed plan is the establishment of a
network of areas which protect a full range of marine biodiversity and
habitats and which take into account the needs of the key users and agencies
involved in the Hauraki Gulf including aquaculture, fishing, tangata whenua
and other relevant interests.

It is proposed that the area covered by the plan be the Hauraki Gulf
Marine Park as defined in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000.
It is proposed to exclude the west coast of the Auckland and Waikato regions
at this stage as this would involve quite different communities of interest
and the availability of biological data for the west coast region is currently
more limited.

Hauraki Gulf Marine Protection PlanThe Hauraki Gulf Marine Biodiversity Protection Plan (HGMPP) is expected
to provide a model for marine protection work that we are likely to undertake
in other regions. We anticipate that different regions would tailor
the approach to suit the needs of their communities. Therefore, the
proposed process needs to be applied on a regional, rather than national
scale. Our proposed process is consistent with the process outlined
in the draft MPA Strategy.

In addition to addressing community and stakeholder concern about the
approach to marine protection being ad hoc, a strategic plan would offer
other benefits, including:

The identification of a network of areas in the Hauraki Gulf that protect
a representative range of marine ecosystems, both unique and typical,

A process based on scientific information, using the best available data
and a panel of scientists and field experts to validate the information
and resolve any outstanding science issues,

An open, transparent and fair process that provides for meaningful input
from tangata whenua and other key stakeholders and contribution from the
wider community,

Increased support and awareness of marine biodiversity in general and for
the work undertaken, by both the department and other organisations, to
protect marine biodiversity,

Increased support for future marine protected area proposals that the department
and external parties promote,

A more coordinated, integrated approach to marine protection for the Hauraki
Gulf, and

A vehicle to build strong relationships with key marine stakeholders and
communities in the Auckland and Waikato regions.

Proposed structure

We are proposing to establish a steering committee to lead the HGMPP.
The committee would need to consult with a wide range of stakeholders and
interest groups and it is proposed that a working group, comprised of key
stakeholders, be established. In addition, there will be a need for
expertise and advice on tangata whenua issues, science, and communications
and education.

Steering CommitteeIt is envisaged that the steering committee will be comprised of officials
from the key agencies that have a political mandate to protect marine biodiversity,
i.e. Department of Conservation, Ministry of Fisheries, Ministry for the
Environment, Auckland Regional Council, Environment Waikato and interested
territorial authorities including Auckland City Council.

In addition to having a statutory mandate, the member agencies of the
steering committee will need to ‘buy-in’ to the process agreed upon by
the group. They must also commit to participating in the process
throughout its duration and to providing funding for the process.
Member agencies will be asked to make expert staff available to work on
relevant parts of the process and to share information with the group as
needed.

The purpose of the steering committee is to make recommendations to
its member agencies for a network of areas that protect marine biodiversity
in the Hauraki Gulf, and to liaise with the Hauraki Gulf Forum. The
member agencies will consider the recommendations and make a decision whether
and how the recommendations will be implemented.

Role of the Hauraki Gulf ForumConsideration was given to whether the Hauraki Gulf Forum was an appropriate
body to lead the proposed HGMPP. We believe a steering committee
should lead the proposed process as some of the Forum’s member agencies
do not have a statutory interest or responsibility for marine protection.
In addition, the purpose of the Hauraki Gulf Forum is the integrated management
of the Gulf, rather than marine protection. We see the integration
and communication functions of the Forum being an important component of
the proposed HGMPP, and envisage that the Forum will provide advice directly
to the steering committee.

Working GroupIt is essential that key stakeholders and interest groups are involved
in the proposed process and that these people have sufficient opportunity
to have their say during the process. It is therefore proposed that
a working group, comprised of key stakeholders, be established. A
multi-stakeholder approach that includes public input and consultation
during the decision-making process is favourable over the more traditional
approach of making decisions then carrying out public consultation afterwards.

The purpose of the working group is to provide stakeholder input and/or
recommendations to the steering committee on the marine protection plan.
The functions of the working group will be to:

Provide stakeholder input to the steering committee,

Receive proposals developed by the steering committee,

Provide feedback and make recommendations to the steering committee on
these proposals,

Negotiate on behalf of the stakeholder groups each member represents, and

Serve as links for ongoing public consultation throughout the process.

There are a number of different ways in which a multi-stakeholder
working group could be formed, from the steering group appointing representatives
of stakeholder and interest groups to allowing all interested people to
participate in the formation of the group. It is proposed that this
be a matter for the steering group to ultimately determine.

Advisory panels/committeesThe steering committee will require expert advice and assistance on
a number of issues. It is therefore proposed that three expert advisory
panels be formed for advice on tangata whenua issues, science/technical
issues, and communications/education. Each advisory panel would report
directly to the steering committee. It is particularly important
for a direct link to exist between iwi and hapu and the steering committee
to provide for the partnership between the Crown and tangata whenua.

Costs of participation in the science/technical group and communications/education
groups should be covered by the organisations for which the scientists
work, although specific scientific work may need to be purchased.

It is envisaged that the science/technical group will use both the Interim
Nearshore Classification, which is a tool to assist establishing a New
Zealand network of protected marine areas, and the Ministry for the Environment-led
Marine Environments Classification as a base for their work.

It is anticipated that the tangata whenua group will comprise of representatives
of all iwi and hapu who wish to be involved in the plan. Nomination
of individuals to the science/technical and communications/education groups
is expected to be an internal process, involving the members of the steering
committee and experts in the appropriate areas.

TimingIt is possible that the HGMPP process could take several years to complete.

Proposed outcome of HGMPPBecause we must respect established consultative procedures we cannot
guarantee the proposed plan will result in more marine reserves in the
Hauraki Gulf. However, the process will focus on marine biodiversity
protection and is expected to result in the creation of protected areas
that complement existing marine reserves. Since the plan will bring different
agencies to the table together and will address marine protection and other
usages concurrently, it is expected that the plan will contribute to and
speed the achievement of ten percent marine protection target outlined
in the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy. It is also expected by
looking at all the marine protected areas together in a network form that
we will be able to reduce the overall amount of time and resources required
to achieve the government’s marine protection goal.

ImplementationWe are currently considering how the proposed HGMPP would be implemented.
The steering committee may recommend that a number of marine protected
areas be established but would not jointly be able to make the necessary
applications. While the Marine Reserves Bill 2002 allows for any
person to prepare a proposal for a marine reserve and the Fisheries Act
allows any person to submit a proposal for the establishment of a taiapure,
only tangata whenua or tangata kaitiaki nominated by tangata whenua, can
apply for a mataitai reserve. Therefore, the member agency responsible
for particular proposed marine protected areas may need to process individual
applications. For example, we would process marine reserve applications
and the Ministry of Fisheries would process taiapure applications.
Other options to consider might include amendment to the Hauraki Gulf Marine
Park legislation or other special legislation if necessary.

Cost Implications

It is proposed that those agencies represented on the steering committee
contribute to the costs of the process. This may be in the form of
funding and staff expertise. In addition, participants in the working
group and advisory panels would be expected to meet their own costs.

A detailed cost estimate of the proposal cannot be completed until the
particulars of the consultation process have been completed. However,
the preliminary estimate is $200,000 per year over and above staff time
provided by participating agencies. It is proposed that that the
costs be equally shared amongst the steering group agencies. In the past
coast of resolving conflicts for one off marine reserve proposals have
been significant and we expect that this additional upfront investment
will result in long term savings for the department through a reduction
in repeated scientific investigation, consultation and conflict resolution
that is necessary for individual marine reserves to be established.

It is envisaged that the cost of running a similar process elsewhere
in the country would be significantly less than in the Hauraki Gulf region.
The Hauraki Gulf is by far the most intensively used marine environment
in the country and is the area where competition for space is at its highest.
Added to that is the large size of the Auckland population, many of whom
wish to be involved in the proposed process. Other regions of New
Zealand are not subject to the same level of use nor do they have such
a large population living in close proximity to a highly accessible marine
environment.

Consultation

Discussions about the proposed plan have been held with a number of
organisations, including Auckland Regional Council, Auckland City Council
and the Auckland Ministry of Fisheries office. All three organisations
have expressed interest in the idea and have indicated they would like
to be involved. It is expected that the Ministry of Fisheries would
have a major role.

The Hauraki Gulf Forum has also expressed interest in our proposal.
We presented a paper at the Forum’s September 2003 meeting and the following
resolution was passed, “That the Forum members support and assist the
Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries in the development
of an overall strategic plan for the protection of marine biodiversity
within the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park”. While the purpose of the
Hauraki Gulf Forum is to integrate the management of the Hauraki Gulf,
the composition of the Forum does not lend itself towards leading the HGMPP.

Key marine stakeholder and interest groups such as Option4, Forest and
Bird and New Zealand Underwater have repeatedly requested a more strategic
approach to marine protection and have indicated their willingness to be
part of such a process.

Section 4 Conservation Act

As outlined above, it is essential that a mechanism is established to
provide for tangata whenua participation in the proposed plan.

Tangata whenua may be concerned about participating in the plan if it
is launched prior to the resolution of issues relating to the ownership
of the seabed and foreshore. Careful consideration will be given
to the timing of discussions with iwi and hapu, taking into account the
government’s timeframe in relation to decisions made about the seabed and
foreshore issue. In addition, we will emphasise to tangata whenua
that the proposed HGMPP is not about ownership of the Hauraki Gulf, but
is about management of the marine environment to maintain and enhance the
area, regardless of ownership.

Consideration will also be given to the potential impact the plan may
have on any Treaty claims to ensure the Crown’s position and the interests
of Maori are not compromised.

Risk Assessment

Great Barrier Island marine reserve proposalThe proposed HGMPP may impact on the Great Barrier Island (GBI) and
other marine reserve proposals that are currently being mooted. Stakeholders
may criticise us for proceeding with the GBI proposal prior to the outcome
of the HGMPP. However, some of the marine habitats in the proposed
reserve are not currently represented in other marine protected areas in
New Zealand so it is likely that any plan will identify the north-east
coast of GBI as an area of high marine biodiversity that should be protected.
As with any other marine reserve proposal, the GBI reserve will have to
meet the requirements of the Marine Reserve Act prior to being established.

Other marine reserve proposalsAside from the Great Barrier Island marine reserve proposal, we have
no plans to promote any other marine reserve proposals during the duration
of the HGMPP. While the HGMPP would not prevent other organisations
from pursuing marine reserve proposals, it is possible that such proposals
would not get support from the stakeholders and interest groups who were
participating in the wider process.

Fisheries issuesOur experience with marine reserve proposals indicates that issues
relating to the current approach to fisheries management in New Zealand,
both commercial and recreational, will arise during the development of
the proposed HGMPP. Some recreational fishing advocate groups and
individual fishers would like to see the creation of dedicated recreational
fishing areas as part of the proposed process. It is therefore essential
that the Ministry of Fisheries is fully involved in the process.

AquacultureIt is likely that developments in the identification of Aquaculture
Management Areas (AMAs) within Regional Coastal Plans and the lifting of
the aquaculture moratorium (likely to be December 2004) will have an impact
on the proposed HGMPP. For example, the AMA process may result in
large areas being designated for aquaculture, meaning less areas available
for marine protected areas and, possibly, areas of high biodiversity being
used for aquaculture. In addition, the public may be more resistant
to a marine protected area being established in their “back yard” if part
of the area is designated as an AMA or already has marine farming present.
The general public may also resent having to engage in a separate round
of consultation on marine protected areas, when they have recently been
consulted on AMAs.

Legislation

It is possible the steering committee might recommend special legislation
if they decide to follow a process similar to that used for the investigation
and protection of marine, coastal and estuarine areas in Victoria, Australia.

Dear Department of conservation,
Your Hauraki Gulf Working Group proposal has some serious shortcomings
as it does not come close to addressing fishermen's most pressing concerns:

* it reduces one million recreational fishermen to a single vote within
a stacked committee consisting mostly of agencies committed to marine reserves
for better or for worse, due to either their obligation to the Crown or
their uninformed beliefs. This is not an attractive proposition for us
since the only people affected are the fishermen who are being deprived
of their traditions and rights with no compensation in sight.

* it does not address our concerns with the Biodiversity Strategy (Marine)
and its attached conclusion that networks of marine reserves are the ONLY
way to protect marine biodiversity. Where is the proof?

* it is a myopic attempt to focus a lot of work on a small area, rather
than working out a strategic plan for the whole of our EEZ. We're sure
that DOC will remain confrontational, secretive and deceitful while pushing
marine reserves elsewhere.

* we are not interested in closing off 10% of the sea, believing that
this will save the sea. Our focus is on saving ALL of our seas for the
sustainable use by our children and their offspring. We want more fish
in the sea within healthy marine ecosystems and there are better ways to
achieve this. Why try to save 10% when we can save 100%?

* it is not a fully integrated approach as we see it, which looks at
all threats, including population pressure, landbased pollution and fishing,
while embracing a scale of protection measures from the Quota Management
System through trawler restrictions to permanently closed areas. Also the
Marine Reserves Act and DOC must be questioned as being the right agents.

* it must acknowledge that the QMS is finally showing results and that
stocks are increasing. DOC must also acknowledge that de-facto marine reserves
closed off in cable ways and other, have high conservational value and
therefore must have high priority as well.

* it does not address the nonsense of the rush to have 10% of the sea
boxed in by the year 2010. Where is the proof that urgency is required?
Why do things wrong today when we can do them right tomorrow?

* it does not leave enough time for consultation, awareness and education.
The Public is entitled to this.

* it does not give enough control to local people and fishermen who
make the sacrifices.

* it is an attempt to use heavyhandedness and law rather than education
with self responsibility as is necessary for fostering a sense of environmental
hygiene with everybody who ventures on the sea, and all of us inhabiting
the land.

* it does not address the largest threat to the sea, that of land based
pollution such as runoff from the land and sewage from populations of people
and farm animals.

* it does not address our concerns with the now established fact that
coastal marine reserves are not working for protecting biodiversity. Why
have more failed marine reserves?

* an annoying problem for us is having to engage with people who have
not bothered to inform themselves, including a secretive and deceitful
Department of Conservation. We may refer you to the many instances of misinformation
and deceit documented on the Option4 and Seafriends web sites.

* in order to make a beginning, DOC and others should take notice and
resolve each of the wrongs in the present marine reserves approach, as
summarised on the Seafriends web site: www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/war/index#intro

* as a basis for further engagement, participants must endorse the independent
and informative teachings on the independent Seafriends web site, and they
must inform themselves of its content. It makes no sense communicating
with people who do not understand the sea and its ecology or the principles
of resource management and conservation, or the threats originating from
the land.

* a further requirement is for the public to have proof that they are
being listened to. If DOC does not officially and permanently abandon both
the Great Barrier and Tiritiri marine reserve proposals, this will not
be achieved. The public must have confidence that DOC backs off from its
bungled and erroneous attempts. There exists no valid reason to engage
with a partner who does not listen, take notice and react accordingly.

* in dealing with DOC we have experienced a litany of lies and deceit.
This must end before meaningful consultation can be achieved. Also DOC's
Mafia-style secrecy must make place for openness.

As you can see, progressing with the Working Group
does not make good sense at all. It is time for DOC to take a deep breath
and a long coffee break. The best solution for future generations would
be to leave DOC out of the equation and address all issues under the Fisheries
Act, with the Minister of Fisheries as sole agent.